Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

FairTranslate: An English-French Dataset for Gender Bias Evaluation in Machine Translation by Overcoming Gender Binarity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LLMs almost never produce inclusive French, even when prompted

desk verdict Useful dataset and a clear empirical pattern, but the strong 'models misunderstand singular they' conclusion needs a semantic audit and a clarified scoring protocol. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15941 v2 pith:NK3I3UT5 submitted 2025-04-22 cs.CL cs.AI

Fanny Jourdan , Yannick Chevalier , Cécile Favre This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords genderbiasmachinetranslationinclusivelanguagenon-binarysingulartheyEnglish-FrenchLLMevaluationFairTranslate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces FairTranslate, a human-annotated English–French dataset of 2,418 occupation-based sentence pairs, and uses it to evaluate four large language models under four prompting strategies. The central claim is that LLMs translate inclusive gender forms far worse than masculine or feminine forms: French inclusive indicators such as 'iel' and midpoint forms are almost never generated, even when the prompt explicitly requests them. More fundamentally, the paper argues that this failure is not just a matter of models being unfamiliar with recent French inclusive writing practices; models also misread long-established English inclusive constructs, particularly the singular 'they', translating it as plural instead of as a singular neutral form. If correct, FairTranslate provides a valid benchmark for non-binary gender bias in machine translation and demonstrates a prompting-resistant limitation of current LLMs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the FairTranslate dataset itself, built on a counterfactual design: every occupation-based sentence exists in three gender variants (male, female, inclusive) that differ only in gender markers, allowing model behavior to be compared across genders while controlling for content. Each sentence carries metadata for stereotype alignment, ambiguity type (ambiguous, unambiguous, long unambiguous), and a list of three French occupational forms (e.g., infirmier, infirmière, infirmier.ière). The central analytic device is the inclusive-indicator detection: the paper counts occurrences of inclusive markers (iel, lea, un.e, ce.tte, and midpoint endings such as ier.ère) in model outputs to measure how often inclusive forms are produced. A companion dictionary maps the chosen inclusive orthography to recognized alternatives so that valid inclusive forms other than the dataset's canonical ones are not penalized.

What would settle it

Count inclusive French markers in model outputs while applying the alternative-forms dictionary to accept any recognized inclusive orthography; if the proportion of inclusive-labeled sentences with such markers exceeds a low threshold (e.g., 15%), the 'almost never' claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is that the gender gap in LLM translation is systematic and prompting-resistant: across all four models, male translations receive the highest BLEU and COMET scores, female translations next, and inclusive translations lowest, with ANOVA p-values below $10^{-10}$; and inclusive French forms (iel, un.e, lea, midpoint occupational endings) appear in at most 86 of 806 inclusive-labeled sentences, and in most configurations fewer than 10. Prompting with moral or linguistic instructions improves inclusive output only slightly and at the cost of degrading binary translations. The deeper finding is that models predominantly translate the singular 'they' as the plural 'ils', indicating a failure to interpret the inclusive function of 'they' in English, which the authors argue underlies the poor inclusive output in French. The paper therefore claims that the challenge is not merely adapting to new French conventions but a fundamental representational gap in how LLMs handle established English inclusive constructs.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation's ground truth rests on the authors' chosen French inclusive orthography (iel, un.e, lea, midpoint forms), and if the scoring did not accept other recognized inclusive forms via the provided dictionary, the 'almost never generated' result would overstate model failure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Current open LLMs are not reliable for inclusive English-to-French translation: without further intervention, inclusive forms are rarely produced, and prompting alone does not close the gap.
  • Translation quality for binary genders is also affected by prompting: moral and linguistic prompts improve inclusive output slightly but degrade masculine and feminine translations, so fairness interventions carry a cost.
  • Models' failure to interpret the singular 'they' as singular is a distinct error source, not merely a lack of French inclusive vocabulary: the dataset isolates this by labeling ambiguity and coreference distance.
  • The FairTranslate dataset can serve as a reusable benchmark for measuring non-binary gender bias in any English-to-French MT system, including future models.
  • Because each sentence has three gender variants, the dataset enables counterfactual evaluations that separate model bias from dataset bias.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The dictionary's role in the Table 4 and Figure 5 counts is not explicit; if it was not applied, the 'almost never generated' result may overstate model failure for systems producing alternative recognized inclusive forms.
  • The counterfactual design could be ported to other gendered target languages, such as German or Spanish, to test whether the singular-'they' misinterpretation generalizes across typologically distinct languages.
  • The observed misreading of singular 'they' as plural suggests a representational issue that may also affect zero-shot translation into other languages with gendered pronouns, beyond French.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces FairTranslate, an English-French dataset of 2,418 sentence pairs centered on occupations, annotated with gender labels (male, female, inclusive), ambiguity type, and occupational stereotype. The English side is produced by back-translating French reference sentences, with all three gender variants per base example. The authors evaluate four LLMs (Gemma2-2B, Mistral-7B, Llama3.1-8B, Llama3.3-70B) under four prompting strategies, measuring BLEU, COMET, frequency of inclusive indicators (Table 4), occupation-form gender (Section 7), and pronoun choice for singular 'they' (Section 8.2). They report that inclusive forms score significantly lower than binary forms, that French inclusive indicators are rarely generated (0-86/806), and that models frequently translate singular 'they' as plural 'ils', leading to the conclusion that LLMs fail to understand established inclusive constructs in English.

Significance. The dataset is a valuable resource: it is publicly released, built with a counterfactual design that controls for sentence content across gender variants, and annotated with stereotype and ambiguity metadata. The finding that inclusive forms are translated worse than binary forms across all models and metrics is statistically robust (ANOVA p<1e-10). If the counting and interpretation issues identified below are resolved, the benchmark could support progress in gender-inclusive MT. The paper's strongest contribution is the dataset itself rather than the specific model rankings.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 8.1, Table 4] The counting of inclusive indicators uses a fixed list ("Iel", "iel", "Lea", "lea", "Un.e", "un.e", "Ce.tte", "ce.tte" plus suffix endings), but Section 4.3 introduces a Python dictionary to map the dataset's chosen forms to recognized alternatives such as 'ul' instead of 'iel' and 'un·e' instead of 'un.e'. The counting protocol in Section 8.1 does not state that this dictionary was applied. If it was not applied, valid inclusive outputs such as 'un·e', 'la·le', or 'iel·le' would be counted as non-inclusive, inflating the "almost never" result. Please clarify whether the dictionary was used in the counts reported in Table 4 and Figure 5; if it was not, re-run the analysis with the dictionary applied and report both raw and normalized counts.
  2. [Section 8.2, footnote 8] The claim that translating singular 'they' as 'ils' shows the model "has not recognized the singular usage of 'they'" is an interpretive leap. French has no single standardized inclusive singular pronoun; 'ils' can function as a generic or grammatical plural rendering, and footnote 8 admits that a plural may be justified in some examples. The paper does not quantify how many of the 246 examples are legitimate double interpretations. To support the stronger conclusion in Section 9 that models "fail to adequately understand inclusive constructs in English," the authors should provide a semantic audit, such as human judgments on a sample of the 246 source sentences to determine the intended referent number and human acceptability judgments on the French outputs. Without this, the "misinterpretation as plural" conclusion is not established.
  3. [Section 4.2, Step 2] The English source sentences are back-translations from French, generated by GPT-4o from the French reference sentences and then human-verified. This means the English is constructed and may not reflect natural patterns of singular 'they' usage, including contexts where the referent is unambiguously singular. Since the paper's broader claim in Section 9 concerns models' handling of "established inclusive constructs in English," the benchmark's ecological validity depends on the naturalness of the English side. The paper should either provide evidence that the back-translated English is natural (e.g., human naturalness ratings) or explicitly temper the claim to say the evaluation uses constructed stimuli. A brief discussion of this limitation would strengthen the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract calls FairTranslate "fully human-annotated," but Section 4.2 describes LLM-assisted sentence generation with human supervision; consider using "human-verified" or clarifying the annotation workflow.
  2. [Section 2] The phrases "singular 'they' (person 3)" and "plural 'they' (person 6)" are unclear; they should read "third-person singular" and "third-person plural".
  3. [Section 6.4] The interpretation of BLEU/COMET differences is thoughtful, but reporting effect sizes (e.g., partial eta-squared) alongside the ANOVA p-values would help readers gauge the magnitude of gender disparities.
  4. [Section 5] The linguistic prompting includes "to be applied only if explicitly requested" followed by the appended "Otherwise, use the classic feminine or masculine form." This instruction may bias against inclusive forms; a sentence-level analysis of whether the appended sentence suppresses inclusive output would clarify the prompting effect.
  5. [Table 4] Consider reporting percentages rather than raw counts in the text; "ranges between 0 and 86 out of 806" is clear, but percentages would aid comparison across models and prompting conditions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the evaluation measures external model outputs against a human-annotated reference; the only self-citation is background, and the inclusive-orthography scoring caveat is a measurement-validity concern, not a derivation from the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external evidence. The FairTranslate reference translations were authored and human-verified before any model was run (Section 4.2), and the four LLMs are evaluated zero-shot with standard BLEU/COMET metrics and a reported indicator count; no parameter is fitted to the model outputs, so the 'almost never' result is an empirical measurement rather than a quantity forced by construction. The lone self-citation (Chevalier et al. [6]) appears in Section 2 only as background linguistic framing for the French/English comparison and is not load-bearing for the dataset, experiments, or conclusions. The most plausible circularity-adjacent concern is that Section 8.1 counts inclusive indicators using the exact orthography chosen in Section 4.3 ('iel', 'un.e', 'lea', etc.) and the paper does not state that the Section 4.3 alternatives dictionary was applied in Table 4; if it was not, valid inclusive variants such as 'ul' would be missed. That is a construct-validity or reproducibility caveat to check in the released code, not a circular derivation: the count is a measurement against a chosen operationalization, not an equation that reduces to the paper's own inputs. Likewise, reading frequent 'ils' output as 'has not recognized the singular usage of they' is an interpretive step, and footnote 8 concedes plural can be justified in some cases, but the interpretation is not equivalent to the dataset definition. Overall no circular step is exhibited, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental result depends on three classes of assumptions: linguistic theory about French grammatical gender (Section 2), the choice of singular 'they' as the inclusive English standard and of 'iel'/'un.e'/midpoint forms as the French target standard (Section 4.3), and external occupation-stereotype data from Statbel (Section 4.1). No numerical parameters are fitted to data; the main non-empirical input is the normative reference standard.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Grammatical gender in French operates by two principles: agreement with a donor noun (Principle A) and conveying a person's identity (Principle B).
    Section 2 presents these as established linguistic facts (citing Corbett and Chevalier et al.) and uses them to define why French target forms are gendered; the whole evaluation presumes this framework.
  • domain assumption The singular 'they' in English is the appropriate standard inclusive pronoun for non-binary or unspecified gender.
    Section 4.3 selects singular 'they' as the dataset's inclusive English marker, citing historical and contemporary usage; this is a normative choice about the source side.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen French inclusive forms ('iel', 'un.e', 'lea', midpoint occupational forms such as 'infirmier.ière') are correct reference translations.
    Section 4.3 states that due to lack of standards the authors 'had to make choices' in constructing ground truth; model performance is measured against these choices, and it is unclear if the provided alternative-forms dictionary was applied during scoring.
  • domain assumption Statbel occupation gender distributions used to label stereotype categories are an adequate representation of real-world occupational gender ratios.
    Section 4.1 says stereotype labels come from Statbel; the male/female/balanced lists in Figure 3 are treated as ground truth for stereotype analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FairTranslate: An English-French Dataset for Gender Bias Evaluation in Machine Translation by Overcoming Gender Binarity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NK3I3UT5

@misc{pith2026250415941,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FairTranslate: An English-French Dataset for Gender Bias Evaluation in Machine Translation by Overcoming Gender Binarity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NK3I3UT5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15941}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly leveraged for translation tasks but often fall short when translating inclusive language -- such as texts containing the singular 'they' pronoun or otherwise reflecting fair linguistic protocols. Because these challenges span both computational and societal domains, it is imperative to critically evaluate how well LLMs handle inclusive translation with a well-founded framework. This paper presents FairTranslate, a novel, fully human-annotated dataset designed to evaluate non-binary gender biases in machine translation systems from English to French. FairTranslate includes 2418 English-French sentence pairs related to occupations, annotated with rich metadata such as the stereotypical alignment of the occupation, grammatical gender indicator ambiguity, and the ground-truth gender label (male, female, or inclusive). We evaluate four leading LLMs (Gemma2-2B, Mistral-7B, Llama3.1-8B, Llama3.3-70B) on this dataset under different prompting procedures. Our results reveal substantial biases in gender representation across LLMs, highlighting persistent challenges in achieving equitable outcomes in machine translation. These findings underscore the need for focused strategies and interventions aimed at ensuring fair and inclusive language usage in LLM-based translation systems. We make the FairTranslate dataset publicly available on Hugging Face, and disclose the code for all experiments on GitHub.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15941 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of potential translation errors in handling gendered language in machine translation. Starting from a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples from the FairTranslate dataset. Words in colors indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Lists of occupations used for sentence generation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the Labelled Gender Based on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of French Pronouns in the Translation of the Inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the Labelled Gender Based on the Form of the Translated Occupation by Mistral-7B for Different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the Labelled Gender Based on the Form of the Translated Occupation by Llama3.1-8B for Different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the Labelled Gender Based on the Form of the Translated Occupation by Llama3.3-70B for Different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of French Pronouns in the Translation of the Inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of French Pronouns in the Translation of the Inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distribution of French Pronouns in the Translation of the Inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of French Pronouns in the Translation of the Inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. GeNRe: A French Gender-Neutral Rewriting System Using Collective Nouns

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GeNRe is the first French gender-neutral rewriting system to replace masculine plural member nouns with collective nouns, reaching 3.81% WER with its rule-based version.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Julie Abbou. 2013. Pratiques graphiques du genre. Langues et cité 24 (2013), 4–5

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Anne Abeillé and Danièle Godard. 2021. La grande grammaire du français . Édi- tions Actes Sud

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Alpheratz. 2018. Grammaire du français inclusif: littérature, philologie, linguistique. Vent solars. https://books.google.fr/books?id=z1fmvQEACAAJ

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Alpheratz. 2019. Français inclusif : du discours à la langue ? Le Discours et la Langue Revue de linguistique française et d’analyse du discours 111 (2019), 53–74. https://hal.science/hal-02323626

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Yijie Chen, Yijin Liu, Fandong Meng, Jinan Xu, Yufeng Chen, and Jie Zhou. 2024. Beyond Binary Gender: Evaluating Gender-Inclusive Machine Translation with Ambiguous Attitude Words. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16266 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Yannick Chevalier, Hughes Constantin de Chanay, and Laure Gardelle. 2017. Bases linguistiques de l’émancipation: système anglais, système français. Mots. Les langages du politique (2017), 9–36

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Camille Circlude. 2023. La typographie post-binaire. Au-delà de l’écriture inclu- sive. Paris, Editions 42 (2023), 224

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Greville G Corbett. 1991. Gender. Cambridge University Press

    work page 1991

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Anna Currey, Maria Nădejde, Raghavendra Pappagari, Mia Mayer, Stanislas Lauly, Xing Niu, Benjamin Hsu, and Georgiana Dinu. 2022. MT-GenEval: A counterfactual and contextual dataset for evaluating gender accuracy in machine translation. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Harnoor Dhingra, Preetiha Jayashanker, Sayali Moghe, and Emma Strubell. 2023. Queer people are people first: Deconstructing sexual identity stereotypes in large language models. In Queer in AI Workshop at ACL 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Daniel Elmiger. 2017. Binarité du genre grammatical–binarité des écritures? Mots. Les langages du politique 113 (2017), 37–52

    2017

  5. [13]

    Virginia K Felkner, Ho-Chun Herbert Chang, Eugene Jang, and Jonathan May

  6. [14]

    Vagrant Gautam, Julius Steuer, Eileen Bingert, Ray Johns, Anne Lauscher, and Dietrich Klakow. 2024. WinoPron: Revisiting English Winogender Schemas for Consistency, Coverage, and Grammatical Case. In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Computational Models of Reference, Ana...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Pascal Gygax, Ute Gabriel, Arik Lévy, Eva Pool, Marjorie Grivel, and Elena Pedrazzini. 2012. The masculine form and its competing interpretations in French: When linking grammatically masculine role names to female referents is difficult. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 24, 04...

    2012

  8. [16]

    Pascal Gygax, Sandrine Zufferey, and Ute Gabriel. 2021. Le cerveau pense-t-il au masculin. Cerveau, langage et représentations sexistes, Paris, Le Robert (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Karolina Hansen and Katarzyna Żółtak. 2022. Social perception of non-binary individuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior 51, 4 (2022), 2027–2035

    2022

  10. [18]

    Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, De- vendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, et al . 2023. Mistral 7B. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hadas Kotek, Rikker Dockum, and David Sun. 2023. Gender bias and stereo- types in large language models. In Proceedings of the ACM collective intelligence conference. 12–24

    2023

  12. [20]

    Manuel Lardelli, Giuseppe Attanasio, and Anne Lauscher. 2024. Building Bridges: A Dataset for Evaluating Gender-Fair Machine Translation into German. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar (Eds.). ...

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    OpenAI. 2024. Hello GPT-4o. https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/

    2024

  14. [22]

    OpenAI. 2024. Introducing OpenAI o1-preview: A new series of reasoning models for solving hard problems. https://openai.com/index/introducing-openai- o1-preview/

    2024

  15. [23]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation (ACL ’02). Association for Computational Linguistics, USA, 311–318. https://doi.org/10.3115/1073083. 1073135

    2002 doi

  16. [24]

    Manuel Pérez, Katy Barasc, and Hélène Giraudo. 2019. Des (dés) accords grammat- icaux dans la dénomination écrite de la personne en France: un tumulte graphique entre passions tristes et passions joyeuses. GLAD!. Revue sur le langage, le genre, les sexualités 07 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Ricardo Rei, José GC De Souza, Duarte Alves, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Far- inha, Taisiya Glushkova, Alon Lavie, Luisa Coheur, and André FT Martins. 2022. FAccT ’25, June 23–26, 2025, Athens, Greece Jourdan et al. COMET-22: Unbabel-IST 2022 submission for the metrics shared task....

    2022

  18. [26]

    Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , Bonnie Webber, Trevor Cohn, Yulan He, and Yang Liu (Eds.). Associat...

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Rachel Rudinger, Jason Naradowsky, Brian Leonard, and Benjamin Van Durme

  20. [28]

    Gabriel Stanovsky, Noah A Smith, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Evaluating gender bias in machine translation. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Gemma Team, Morgane Riviere, Shreya Pathak, Pier Giuseppe Sessa, Cassidy Hardin, Surya Bhupatiraju, Léonard Hussenot, Thomas Mesnard, Bobak Shahriari, Alexandre Ramé, et al. 2024. Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Priscille Touraille and Arc Allassonnière-Tang. 2023. Chapitre 8. Idéer une catégorie épicène et la matérialiser cohéremment dans la langue. In Qu’est-ce qu’une femme? Éditions Matériologiques, 167–233

    2023

  23. [31]

    Andreas Waldis, Joel Birrer, Anne Lauscher, and Iryna Gurevych. 2024. The Lou Dataset - Exploring the Impact of Gender-Fair Language in German Text Classification. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Yaser Al-Onaizan, Moh...

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Jieyu Zhao, Daniel Khashabi, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, and Kai-Wei Chang

  25. [33]

    Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang

  26. [37]

    ambiguous

    Gender bias in coreference resolution: Evaluation and debiasing methods. In Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL 2018). A Average Number of Words per Example in FairTranslate Table 5 shows the average number of words ...

    2018

  27. [2018]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09301 (2018)

    Gender bias in coreference resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09301 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  28. [2021]

    Ethical-advice taker: Do language models understand natural language interventions? arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01465 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  29. [2023]

    In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2023)

    Winoqueer: A community-in-the-loop benchmark for anti-lgbtq+ bias in large language models. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.